Posted on 03/12/2013 11:02:03 AM PDT by rfreedom4u
http://www.krdo.com/news/Sheriff-Maketa-releases-statement-regarding-gun-control-stance/-/417220/19280038/-/iykxd7/-/index.html
Now, now just calm down, we have this great job all lined up for you, just pack up your kit and get on this train for a pleasant ride to your future home, where you will be happy because work will set you free.
Do you think another gun grabbing law will prevent them from getting a weapon?
I think there are certain people who have demonstrated that they should not own weapons, and I expect the laws (already in place) need to be enforced.
Well, that’s a problem you and the other member need to work out on your own.
It’s our duty to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around. Governments are filled with self-absorbed, self-preserving nitwits. Makita and others like him are true American Patriots, the real minority here. I agree with his statements 150%.
There are lone wolves in every den. “Trust, but verify”. Keep an eye out on the enemy. Communists/marxists/pinkos are very crafty spies, and they invade like a cancer in every fair town and bastion in this great nation. Mark my words on this. If the SHTF, you’ll find out soon enough who your friends really are.
I agree completely and have made voluminous posts on the subject. I have no concerns regarding my circle of friends but appreciate your cautions.
Just a tad naive, ya think?
They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.
“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.
“The people mentioned in the article all appear to be illegally possessing firearms.”
From the article:
They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.
marktwain notes:
The husband had two legally registered guns. He was not a prohibited possesser, yet his guns were confiscated also, on the grounds that his wife could access them.
This is how slo-mo confiscation works. Overtime, you increase those groups who may not have guns (the wife disputes whether she fits the category given), decrease the types of guns that they can have, until the remnant are so decreased that they are of no political consequence.
We are seeing it happen before our eyes.
Registration is Confiscation
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html
As she should. Being hospitalized for mental illness (a very broad and vague category) is not the same as being adjudicated mentally incompetent. I don't know about CA but that's the standard in most states for restricting someone's civil liberties.
I don’t necessarily believe anything I read in traditional media because appearances can be deceiving particularly in this day of state controlled media in a state like CA. I was merely using this article as an example of the “mental” allegation by authorities—read a little history of tyrannical, dictatorial regimes(USSR, etal) and you will learn that the “mental” instability allegation has been used before to deal with enemies of the state.
Do you know for a fact what is reported here is the absolute truth and nothing but the truth?
She was involuntarily committed. I say that means adjudicated mentally incompetent.
Our course not, but I don’t read anything in it that strikes me as onerous. Again, there are certain people that shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun; I don’t have a problem with that.
“CodeToad and Tigerseye are two who have today repeatedly denigrated me for believing this government capable of implementing tyranny against the people.”
Don’t think so, sweetie. I go after those that claim the power of the government is too much for us to handle and claim we will be slaughtered if we try, as though we should not try. I know better, and I am tired of those that claim we should just shut up and take it because otherwise we are all dead.
Well, I wouldn’t characterize SoldierDad as someone who is against patriotic Americans, not at all, but he has been making claims that we will be killed if we try because we don’t have tanks and airplanes.
It’s troll, not mole, and yes, you did denigrate for my view on this issue. Just because YOU don’t see it that way doesn’t make is so. YOU made the claim that the government would never attempt to engage in tyranny, and slapped me for thinking otherwise. Liar? Are you stating you never commented that the government won’t attempt a take-over of the American people? Liar? Really? Read your own words.
“Viene una tormenta.”
Tigerseye calls me a liar, and then you put words in my mouth. Wow. Where did I state that Americans should not fight against the government? Where did I state that we will all be slaughtered if we do? Where did I state anything that was not accurate? Some have stated a belief that the government will NOT engage in a military form of tyranny against the American people BECAUSE we are all armed (which, even if true, which it is not, doesn’t mean that ALL Americans will fight back). This belief appears to stem from the belief that the government knows it would not win in such a campaign. I believe that this government doesn’t give a damn about winning against the people. That is not their aim.
Just remember:
“First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
(Credit the Martin-Niemoller Foundation)
Will legitimate, lawful, sane gunowners be the next target?
The current spate of new gun legislation has nothing to do with preventing felons or the mentally ill from having access to firearms. There are already plenty of laws on the books that address those issues. No, the new legislation is for the purpose of disarming law abiding citizens under the guise of "protecting" We The People from ourselves.
You say I denigrated you? Here are the only two posts I made to you last night...
To: SoldierDadSee post #44. 175k soldiers and 125k Marines (assuming 100% follow orders and fire on brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters) just aren’t enough to go up against 11 million armed citizens. Won’t happen.
45 posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 11:30:04 PM by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)-------------------------------------
To: SoldierDad
How many urban bombings do you think the citizenry of this country will tolerate? How many dead lib kids, soccer moms and grannies as collateral damage will they tolerate?Where did you get the idea that anyone will go out to fight the armed forces?
There is no denigration in those posts. You're a liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.